this is MY idea of ejectable crew cabin published TWO YEARS AGO (Dec. 9, 2006) on my website (visited and downloaded thousands times in latest two years!) and posted on DOZENS space forums and blogs around the world: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/01 ... uttle.html

Where is the word "original" used in that story? (you highlight this word)

A plane with an escape vehicle..... wasnt this used with the early shuttle, many years before your idea two years ago?

I dont think anyone is trying to say this is original. You highlight the word "My" for it being your idea, are you saying a plane with an escape vehicle is your idea then? and are you saying it was your original idea, copied and used here at TAAS?

I have sort of lost why you made the post? other to link to an external site...

To patent something like this dont you have to have a complete set of engineering drawings detailing dimensions and components?

If so I see no evidence that a patent can be issued or if one can it would be so vague as to make it worthless.

Also when the shuttle was being designed by NASA i. the 60s/70s an ejectable cew cabin was one of the things considered but was eventually replaced with ejector seats. I seem to remember seeing drawings of this design ages ago so this is not a new or original idea at all.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Here is an Emal i got from Robert Talmage last night:My patent was issued August 17, 2004 and my provision patent precedes that by a couple of years. The unique aspect of my patent over the F-111 and other cabin ejection systems is the attachment technique and gliding capability.

he sent me a similar mail that I can't publish here without his permission, but I can publish my reply emailed to him:

Robert,I did NOT say you've "stolen" anything to me, but that (both) my design and your design can't be patented...or they can be... but just like "patent the wheel" againbest regards- gm

but...

1. he hasn't send to me a copy of his patent (that I hope he will post here as .pdf so we can read and evaluate it)

2. he (or we) can't patent something already existing just changing a few nuts and bolts... so the idea he has patented was/is NOT patentable

3. assuming his patent is 4.5 years old, it's unclear WHY he has revealed it just now, 4.5 years later!

there are (at least) TWO main reason why this "4.5 years delay" sounds incredible and absurd:

1. in his slides he suggest (like I do in my article) to apply the escape crew cabin idea to the Space Shuttle... so, WHY did he hasn't proposed the safety concept 4.5 years ago (that was 1.5 years after the Columbia accident) but reveals the idea NOW just two years before the Shuttle retirement???

2. from his drawings, the mail goal of his idea is to add an escape cabin to the suborbital spaceplanes like the SS2... so, WHY did he hasn't revealed ad proposed this concept 4.5 years ago rather than NOW while the SS2 is ALREADY BUILT and READY TO FLY soon???

however, I still think that (both) my idea and his idea was/are NOT patentable

"1. he (or we) can't patent something already existing just changing a few nuts and bolts... so the idea he has patented was/is NOT patentable

"2. assuming his patent is 4.5 years old, it's unclear WHY he has revealed it just now, 4.5 years later!

"there are (at least) TWO main reason why this "4.5 years delay" sounds incredible and absurd:

"3. in his slides he suggest (like I do in my article) to apply the escape crew cabin idea to the Space Shuttle... so, WHY did he hasn't proposed the safety concept 4.5 years ago (that was 1.5 years after the Columbia accident) but reveals the idea NOW just two years before the Shuttle retirement???

"4. from his drawings, the mail goal of his idea is to add an escape cabin to the suborbital spaceplanes like the SS2... so, WHY did he hasn't revealed ad proposed this concept 4.5 years ago rather than NOW while the SS2 is ALREADY BUILT and READY TO FLY soon???

"5. however, I still think that (both) my idea and his idea was/are NOT patentable"

Just to explain a bit about patents:

1. Yes you can, provided the few nuts and bolts are considered new art. It does not matter if the idea is brilliant. Only if it is new and has the promise of more than zero utility.

2. Um, the patent office publishes these. In public. You can look them up for yourself. There is no obligation to trumpet a patent.

3. see response to 2.

4. see response to 2.

5. That is apparently because you do not have much experience with how US patents work.

Different countries have different patent laws.

There are many stupid patents. However, the US patent office will NOT allow you to re-patent an existing design. But you CAN patent modifications of existing designs. It is a judgment call by the patent office.

The judgment nature of the patent process can make it difficult for people who are not experienced with the specifics of the design and the existing state of the art to ascertain the worthiness of a patent. And sometimes, this includes the workers at the patent office. It has been ever thus, but certainly as the pace of technological development gets faster, it makes the patent office's job more challenging.

The level of design detail in a patent is not pre-defined. For some patents, you will see only block diagrams. In others, you will get specific mechanical and material specifications.

The process may be different in different countries, but that is more or less how it works in the US. You can learn a lot by just browsing. Here's a link:

I wanted to try and clear up some issues about the article on the TAAS Company escape system and comments made by GM.

I am happy GM shares similar ideas about the need for an escape system for space vehicles and that a detachable crew cabin offers the most practical solution. I hope the following comments may clear up some issues about the article and our work.

Our US patent (# 6,776,373) was issued August 17, 2004 and the provision patent precedes that by another year.

The unique aspect of the TAAS escape cabin over the F-111 and other cabin ejection systems is the attachment technique and gliding capability.

The article discusses our presentation made May 1, 2008 at the AIAA International Space Plane Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference in Dayton, Ohio. The paper (A Safe, Economical and Versatile Space Flight Test Vehicle, #AIAA-2008-2659) discusses how our escape system compares to other escape systems and then outlines a proposal to demonstrate our technology.

The proposed project to demonstrate the escape cabin involves modifying an old Learjet. The proposed four million dollar cost would demonstrate the escape cabin and then the aircraft would be available to operate as a flight test vehicle. At this point the plan is to acquire additional funding to incorporate rocket engines and operate the modified vehicle as a sub-orbital space flight test vehicle.

The objective is to use this flight test vehicle to explore new sub-orbital trajectories and produce revenue as a space flight test vehicle. The concept can be scaled up to eventually fly orbital missions but this will be accomplished incrementally with progressive vehicles. Contracts, sponsors and revenue from the flight test vehicles will fund each new vehicle which will provide the data necessary to develop the next generation space planes.